Sheppard v. Roberson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Sheppard v. Roberson

32 S.E. 665, 106 Ga. 757, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 747

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 15, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 S.E. 665 (Sheppard v. Roberson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheppard v. Roberson, 32 S.E. 665, 106 Ga. 757, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 747 (Ga. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

This case presents for adjudication the single question dealt with in the headnote. Under the section of the code there cited, it is the right of a defendant against whose property an execution “shall issue illegally” to arrest a levy of the same by filing an affidavit of illegality. ■ It appears in the present case that an execution was issued-from a justice’s court .against the defendants in error within four days after the rendition of the judgment upon which it was founded. It was subsequently levied on their property, and they interposed an .affidavit of illegality, which the trial judge held was good. We .agree to the correctness of this ruling. In Knoxville Company [758]*758v. Lovinger, 83 Ga. 563, this court held that such an execution issued by a justice’s court was irregular, but not void, and while for that reason the same could not be attacked collaterally by a claimant, it was open to a direct attack by the defendant in execution. In 8 Enc. PI. & Pr. 344, it is said: “An execution-issued prematurely, even if it be issued at a time when its issuance is prohibited by statute, while it may be remedied in a. direct proceeding seasonably instituted, is not absolutely void,, but irregular merely.” Our statute plainly points out the way in which the defendant in execution may take advantage of such an irregularity, viz., by filing his affidavit of illegality, which was the course pursued in the present case.

Judgment affirmed.

AU the Justices concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lumpkin, P. J.

This case presents for adjudication the single question dealt with in the headnote. Under the section of the code there cited, it is the right of a defendant against whose property an execution “shall issue illegally” to arrest a levy of the same by filing an affidavit of illegality. ■ It appears in the present case that an execution was issued-from a justice’s court .against the defendants in error within four days after the rendition of the judgment upon which it was founded. It was subsequently levied on their property, and they interposed an .affidavit of illegality, which the trial judge held was good. We .agree to the correctness of this ruling. In Knoxville Company [758]*758v. Lovinger, 83 Ga. 563, this court held that such an execution issued by a justice’s court was irregular, but not void, and while for that reason the same could not be attacked collaterally by a claimant, it was open to a direct attack by the defendant in execution. In 8 Enc. PI. & Pr. 344, it is said: “An execution-issued prematurely, even if it be issued at a time when its issuance is prohibited by statute, while it may be remedied in a. direct proceeding seasonably instituted, is not absolutely void,, but irregular merely.” Our statute plainly points out the way in which the defendant in execution may take advantage of such an irregularity, viz., by filing his affidavit of illegality, which was the course pursued in the present case.

Judgment affirmed.

AU the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 S.E. 665, 106 Ga. 757, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheppard-v-roberson-ga-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack